Superior Court HOA Case
The superior-court record shows two major HOA access rulings: waiver of CC&R enforcement in the first trial and private condemnation of an interest in the CC&Rs after remand.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: David B. Vanyo v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2006-011927.
Scope note: This page covers David B. Vanyo v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2006-011927) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the October 1, 2007 summary-judgment ruling, the November 20, 2007 verdict entry, the January 23, 2012 under-advisement ruling after remand, the February 2, 2012 verdict entry, and the March 15, 2012 modified-judgment entry. Currency caveat: the minute entries refer to a June 16, 2011 Court of Appeals opinion but do not reproduce that opinion; this page summarizes only what the collected superior-court minute entries state. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
Carefree Foothills could not rely on the CC&R single-family-use restriction as an automatic bar to access. A first jury found the association waived enforcement of that restriction. After appellate remand, the superior court took implied way of necessity out of the case, ruled that private-condemnation access would include underground utilities, and a second jury found plaintiffs entitled to condemn an interest in the CC&Rs for a private way of necessity.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- David B. Vanyo (Plaintiff)
Plaintiff seeking access across subdivision property to reach adjacent property. - College Book Centers Inc. 401 Profit Sharing Plan (Plaintiff)
Plaintiff listed in the case-parties data with David B. Vanyo. - Jeffrey D. Gross (Counsel)
Counsel for plaintiffs throughout the minute entries.
Respondent Side
- Carefree Foothills Homeowners Association (Defendant)
Homeowners association defending the CC&R restriction and later acting as class representative after remand. - John P. Dwyer and Janet G. Dwyer (Defendants)
Related defendant class members represented with the association in the minute entries. - Kurt M. Zitzer (Counsel)
Counsel for Carefree Foothills and related defendants in the minute entries.
Neutral Parties
- John A. Buttrick (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who handled the 2007 trial and post-trial rulings. - Katherine Cooper (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who handled the 2012 remand trial and modified judgment. - Colleen L. French (Judge)
Judge pro tem who handled post-remand scheduling and the 2011 fee ruling.
What happened
Vanyo sought access across property within the Carefree Foothills subdivision to reach adjacent property. The October 1, 2007 ruling framed the key question as whether an implied way-of-necessity easement would allow a road across subdivision property even though all parties agreed such a road would violate the subdivision CC&Rs on their face.
The court denied both sides’ summary-judgment motions. It found factual disputes over whether the property was landlocked, what development would be possible with access, whether road access could connect different parts of the property, whether the association waived the relevant CC&R restriction, and whether plaintiffs had enough evidence to prove an implied way of necessity.
The first jury trial ended on November 20, 2007. The jury answered yes to the special-verdict question asking whether the association had waived the right to enforce the single-family-use restriction in the CC&Rs. The court entered judgment in April 2008 and later denied the defendants’ renewed judgment-as-a-matter-of-law, new-trial, and alter-or-amend motions, stating that the judgment comported with the jury verdict.
The record then resumes after appeal. A 2011 reassignment entry says the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. On January 23, 2012, Judge Katherine Cooper ruled that implied way of necessity had already been decided by the appellate court and would not be retried as a claim or defense. The court also ruled that, as a matter of law, access resulting from private condemnation of the CC&R restriction included underground utility access.
The second jury trial ended on February 2, 2012. The jury found plaintiffs entitled to condemn an interest in the CC&Rs for a private way of necessity and set just compensation at zero dollars. On March 15, 2012, the court approved and entered a formal written modified judgment.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/david-vanyo-v-carefree-foothills-homeowners-association/raw/: 46 PDFs. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting class certification without opposition and requiring plaintiffs to bear notice costs to class members.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying both sides’ summary-judgment motions because factual disputes remained on implied way of necessity, development access, and waiver of the CC&R single-family-use restriction.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Trial
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Trial
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Verdict
Type: Court/source PDF
Trial minute entry recording the jury’s special verdict that the association waived the right to enforce the CC&R single-family-use restriction.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Judgment-entry minute entry stating that the court’s fee, cost, and judgment rulings were set out in the signed judgment entered that day.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Hearing minute entry setting a $425,000 supersedeas bond and staying execution of the judgment pending disposition of Rule 59 motions.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying the association and related defendants’ renewed judgment-as-a-matter-of-law, new-trial, and alter-or-amend motions, and denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend judgment.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying the association defendants’ CC&R-based fee request as untimely and unproven, denying A.R.S. § 12-341.01 fees as premature, and adopting the Court of Appeals fee-and-cost award.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling after remand holding implied way of necessity would not be retried, granting partial summary judgment on underground utility access, and leaving private condemnation of the CC&R restriction for trial.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Trial
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Trial
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Trial
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Verdict
Type: Court/source PDF
Trial minute entry recording the jury’s verdict that plaintiffs were entitled to condemn an interest in the CC&Rs for a private way of necessity with zero dollars in compensation.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Judgment-entry minute entry approving and entering the formal written modified judgment after the remand trial.
FAQ
What CC&R restriction was disputed?
The minute entries describe a single-family-use restriction in the subdivision CC&Rs. The proposed access road would violate the CC&Rs on their face unless plaintiffs could establish waiver or another legal path to access.
What did the first jury decide?
The first jury found that Carefree Foothills waived the right to enforce the CC&R single-family-use restriction.
What changed after appeal?
The superior-court record says the appeal was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. On remand, the court ruled that implied way of necessity had already been decided and would not be retried, while private condemnation of the CC&R restriction remained for the jury.
What did the 2012 under-advisement ruling decide about utilities?
The court held that, as a matter of law, access resulting from private condemnation of the CC&R restriction included access for underground utilities.
What did the second jury decide?
The second jury found plaintiffs entitled to condemn an interest in the CC&Rs for a private way of necessity and set just compensation at zero dollars.
Why are the fee rulings included?
The fee entries show post-verdict consequences and the limits of CC&R fee claims in this record. In 2011, the court denied a CC&R-based fee request as untimely and unproven, denied A.R.S. § 12-341.01 fees as premature, and adopted the Court of Appeals fee-and-cost award.
Case Dossier
This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | CV2006-011927 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | March 15, 2012 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Kenneth L. Fields, Hon. John A. Buttrick, Hon. Colleen L. French, Hon. Katherine Cooper |
| Parties | David B. Vanyo and College Book Centers Inc. 401 Profit Sharing Plan (Plaintiffs) v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners Association and related defendants |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | cc-and-rscovenantsselective-enforcementattorneys-feesprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior-court record shows two merits outcomes: first, a jury found Carefree Foothills waived its right to enforce the CC&Rs’ single-family-use restriction against the proposed access; after remand, the court removed implied way of necessity from trial, ruled that any private-condemnation access included underground utilities, and a jury found Vanyo entitled to condemn an interest in the CC&Rs for a private way of necessity. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 46 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 10 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
David Vanyo sought access across property within Carefree Foothills, where all sides agreed the proposed road would violate the subdivision’s CC&Rs unless the association had waived enforcement or the restriction could be condemned. In the first trial, the court denied cross-motions for summary judgment because disputed facts controlled issues including landlocked status, development access, and whether the association waived the single-family-use restriction. A jury then found the association had waived the right to enforce that CC&R restriction. After an appeal affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, the superior court held that implied way of necessity was no longer an issue, that private condemnation access would include underground utilities as a matter of law, and a second jury found Vanyo entitled to condemn an interest in the CC&Rs for a private way of necessity with zero compensation owed. A modified judgment was entered in March 2012.
The October 1, 2007 summary-judgment ruling identified the central issue as whether Vanyo had an implied way-of-necessity easement that would allow construction of a road across subdivision property to reach adjacent property. The court noted that all parties agreed the road would violate the subdivision CC&Rs on their face. But the parties disputed whether the property was landlocked, how it could be developed if northern access existed, whether a road could connect different portions of the property, whether the association waived the relevant CC&R provision, and whether Vanyo had enough evidence to prove an implied way of necessity. Because material factual disputes predominated, the court denied both sides’ summary-judgment motions.
At the November 2007 jury trial, the jury answered yes to the special verdict asking whether the association waived the right to enforce the single-family-use restriction in the CC&Rs. The court later entered judgment, set a supersedeas bond, and denied the association’s renewed judgment-as-a-matter-of-law, new-trial, and alter-or-amend motions, finding the post-trial motions failed under Rules 50 and 59 and that the judgment comported with the jury verdict.
After the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, the January 23, 2012 under-advisement ruling narrowed the retrial. The court stated that the Court of Appeals had already determined the absence of an implied way of necessity as a matter of law based on the record, so implied way of necessity would not be retried as a claim or defense. The court also held that, as a matter of law, access resulting from private condemnation of the CC&R restriction included underground utility access. The second jury then found Vanyo entitled to condemn an interest in the CC&Rs for a private way of necessity and awarded zero dollars in compensation, followed by a March 2012 modified judgment.
This case is significant because it treats CC&R enforcement and waiver as fact questions capable of defeating an HOA’s effort to block access that otherwise violated recorded use restrictions. It also shows how a CC&R restriction can become the target of a private-condemnation theory after appellate remand, with the superior court separating implied way of necessity from private condemnation and ruling that utility access followed the private-condemnation access as a matter of law.
For association boards and owners, the case is a reminder that recorded restrictions are not self-executing in every factual setting. Past conduct, waiver, access history, and the exact remedy sought can matter. As a superior-court record, it binds only the parties, and the minute entries do not reproduce the full appellate opinion or the modified judgment text; the page summarizes only what the collected superior-court minute entries show.